Dintelman et al v. Chicot County Memorial Hospital et al
ORDER granting 73 Motion for Sanctions and awarding costs of the court reporter present to transcribe the depositions on December 16, 2009 along with $100.00 in attorneys' fees; and removing the case from the trial docket the week of April 26, 2010. Signed by Judge James M. Moody on 1/21/10. (bkp)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS PINE BLUFF DIVISION JIM DINTELMAN, et. al. V S. CASE NO. 5:07CV00196 DEFENDANTS PLAINTIFFS
CHICOT COUNTY MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, et. al. ORDER
Pending is Defendant, Chicot Memorial Hospital's motion for sanctions. (Docket # 73). Plaintiffs failed to respond. For good cause shown, the motion for sanctions is GRANTED. On or about October 28, 2009, Defendant, Chicot Memorial Hospital filed and served Notices of Depositions scheduling the depositions of David Donovan and Jim Dintelman on December 16 and 17, 2009. On December 14, 2009, Plaintiffs' counsel notified Defendant's counsel of a conflict, however, no motion to quash was filed with the Court. Thereafter, Plaintiffs and their counsel failed to appear at the depositions. Due to Plaintiffs failure to appear at the depositions after receiving proper notice, Defendants will be awarded the costs of the court reporter present to transcribe the depositions on December 16, 2009 along with one hundred dollars ($100.00) in attorneys fees. Further, the Court will remove the case from the trial docket the week of April 26, 2010. An amended scheduling order will be entered resetting this case for trial and providing a new discovery deadline. Plaintiffs are cautioned that the failure to participate in discovery could result in further sanctions including dismissal of their complaint. IT IS SO ORDERED this 21st day of January, 2010.
____________________________________ James M. Moody United States District Judge
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?